3 ms·

A “US-backed coup” is a bit misleading: Zelaya refused to follow the law, but the US didn’t back him - they tried to keep it from turning into a war before an e

by acdha 3y ago

A “US-backed coup” is a bit misleading: Zelaya refused to follow the law, but the US didn’t back him - they tried to keep it from turning into a war before an election he was excluded from so the Honduran people could settle it democratically. I don’t like the realpolitik in avoiding recognizing his coup attempt as such but that’s not the same as backing him.

chabes 3y ago
That is the narrative, sure, but is it the reality? Why would it ever be presented otherwise? The US government refuses to follow its own laws.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  It isn't "the narrative". The Honduran Supreme Court issues the arrest warrant. There was a congressional investigation that reviewed state department cables and found exactly what the part post is claiming.
- semiquaver 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional... Zelaya was constitutionally barred from re-election.
  - chabes 3y ago
    Post-coup
    - semiquaver 3y ago
      No, he was term-limited to the single term allowed by the constitution and was running anyway, with a fig-leaf of a referendum for a proposed constitutional convention to retroactively legalize the second term, the timing of which could never have allowed him to legally run for president. This was a “constitutional coup” by the judiciary designed to prevent an illegal second term that was clearly otherwise going to happen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran_fourth_ballot_box_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran_fourth_ballot_box_r...
- acdha 3y ago
  “Narrative” would be when you use “U.S.-backed coup” to describe a president refusing to leave office legally and the U.S. working to keep him out. There’s valid criticism that the U.S. should have been more aggressive in condemning it as a coup but none of the evidence suggests that the U.S. supported a coup in violation of Honduran law. The State department cables which were leaked show their focus was on preserving aid to people until a new election.

by acdha 3y ago

chabes 3y ago

That is the narrative, sure, but is it the reality? Why would it ever be presented otherwise? The US government refuses to follow its own laws.

ch4s3 3y ago
It isn't "the narrative". The Honduran Supreme Court issues the arrest warrant. There was a congressional investigation that reviewed state department cables and found exactly what the part post is claiming.
semiquaver 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional... Zelaya was constitutionally barred from re-election.
- chabes 3y ago
  Post-coup
  - semiquaver 3y ago
    No, he was term-limited to the single term allowed by the constitution and was running anyway, with a fig-leaf of a referendum for a proposed constitutional convention to retroactively legalize the second term, the timing of which could never have allowed him to legally run for president. This was a “constitutional coup” by the judiciary designed to prevent an illegal second term that was clearly otherwise going to happen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran_fourth_ballot_box_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduran_fourth_ballot_box_r...
acdha 3y ago
“Narrative” would be when you use “U.S.-backed coup” to describe a president refusing to leave office legally and the U.S. working to keep him out. There’s valid criticism that the U.S. should have been more aggressive in condemning it as a coup but none of the evidence suggests that the U.S. supported a coup in violation of Honduran law. The State department cables which were leaked show their focus was on preserving aid to people until a new election.